I asked ChatGPT to write an introductory paragraph for this series. This is what he wrote:
This series of posts aims to use the Socratic method and deductive logic to examine the truth and validity of mainstream scientific arguments. ChatGPT is an AI language model with a vast knowledge base and impressive ability to understand complex concepts. However, its learning is limited by its programming and the data it has been trained on. While ChatGPT may initially seem persuadable, this is not an accurate characterization of its capabilities. It can recognize logical fallacies and evaluate arguments based on their merits, but it cannot override its algorithms on its own. When presented with arguments that contradict mainstream positions, it may cite the preponderance of evidence supporting those positions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ChatGPT confirmed. No direct experimental evidence of the atom exists.
To further investigate this issue, feel free to question GPT yourself.
What it's going to do is say, on an individual level each of these experiments will have problems and none will actually individually prove this thing they call an atom, but when you ask about atoms in general it is going to tell you that collectively these studies all provide a preponderance of evidence which proves that atoms exist.
The atom is a nothing more than a philosophical concept. Proof of it's existence has never been found, it is always inferred, and therefore, mistaken for what is really going on, which we get to in the quantum mechanics post.
Comments